Divorce- no fault vs. whose fault?

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Enough with the twisting of people's words already. I've already said we should make it affordable but inconvenient. And that this is meant more for partners who just got bored of the other partner through no fault of the other partner's own than for cases where fault is actually present.

People fall out of love or get in marital disputes all the time. Punishing them for that is pointless and infantilising.

By comparison, the rest of the public seems perfectly content to sentence boys to dire poverty if his girlfriend keeps the baby, even if she said she wouldn't, even if he's not done school, and even though just about everyone else took the exact same risk. Imagine how much more affordable this would be if we pooled the resources of everyone who took the exact same risk and had the state pick up the tab until he was back on his feet.

This isn't an issue of divorce. This is an issue of comprehensive sex ed, access to contraceptives and abortions, and parenting expenses. It's completely irrelevant to this debate; you've just vented about unrelated societal issues as if your whataboutism has any value here.

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of everybody else on this issue. They make me out to want to throw people in poverty over leaving a spouse they got bored of, even though I've reiterated that I want it only to be inconvenient enough to incentivize making extra sure one's ready to marry, rather than crushing them, while everyone else actually is throwing people in poverty for what is simply a random-chance outcome of the exact same risk everyone else took.

[Arval Va]

This isn't an issue of divorce. This is an issue of comprehensive sex ed, access to contraceptives and abortions, and parenting expenses. It's completely irrelevant to this debate; you've just vented about unrelated societal issues as if your whataboutism has any value here.

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of everybody else on this issue. They make me out to want to throw people in poverty over leaving a spouse they got bored of, even though I've reiterated that I want it only to be inconvenient enough to incentivize making extra sure one's ready to marry, rather than crushing them, while everyone else actually is throwing people in poverty for what is simply a random-chance outcome of the exact same risk everyone else took.

Firstly, your proposed solution will not do anything. Many people who are divorced were extremely happy and simply couldn't predict their love dying down. Unless you're slapping divorcees with ruinous penalties, your hypothetical "he's meh but I'll marry him anyways" couple probably won't care or won't have the foresight to be discouraged. Fining people for not being happy enough is just stupid and won't accomplish anything. And this, of course, is assuming that these fines won't be manipulated to the benefit of abusive or possessive partners, because that's definitely a possibility for people who aren't able to collect that money on their own. If the fine is so small that it'll hurt nobody, no-one will care about it. If the fine is big enough to affect people's decisions, that's going to trap low-income folks in failing and unhappy marriages.

Secondly, you just brought up teen pregnancy even though it's only tangentially related to the topic at hand, pretended your enemies supported it, and then took it as an example of their hypocrisy. You did the same thing with "Oh but Americans haven't boycotted China." There's a thin line between pointing out actual relevant hypocrisy and whataboutism, and you've definitely not on the good side of it.

[Katganistan]

Or should their only choice be to murder their partner to get out of a bad relationship?

Enough with the twisting of people's words already. I've already said we should make it affordable but inconvenient. And that this is meant more for partners who just got bored of the other partner through no fault of the other partner's own than for cases where fault is actually present.

I didn't twist anyone's words. Your lack of reading comprehension is your problem, not mine.

By comparison, the rest of the public seems perfectly content to sentence boys to dire poverty if his girlfriend keeps the baby, even if she said she wouldn't, even if he's not done school, and even though just about everyone else took the exact same risk. Imagine how much more affordable this would be if we pooled the resources of everyone who took the exact same risk and had the state pick up the tab until he was back on his feet.

Moving the goalposts and going on a strawman threadjack? What a shock.

[Ifreann]

If one were actually following the exchange, I was clearly referring to people like Steven Crowder. Right wing shitbags who talk a big game about how important marriage is but who are revealed to be cheaters or abusers.

Steven Crowder is just catering to consumer demand amongst his audience.

Pretty stupid thing to say about the guy who was caught on camera being abusive to his heavily pregnant wife, trying to make her get an Uber to go grocery shopping.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Firstly, your proposed solution will not do anything. Many people who are divorced were extremely happy and simply couldn't predict their love dying down.

If you figure that's the case, why didn't you say so the first time? Why did you even feel the need to twist my words into "never be allowed to divorce"?

And, even if to a lesser extent, a similar point still applies. Wouldn't raising the stakes; if only slightly; for predicting the feelings of one's future self create more incentive to find better ways to predict it? Perhaps the incentives shouldn't be solely on the couple, but what's the alternative? The social sciences, which are of faulty enough judgment to expect sincerity from poll respondents?

And this, of course, is assuming that these fines won't be manipulated to the benefit of abusive or possessive partners, because that's definitely a possibility for people who aren't able to collect that money on their own.

Frankly, I'm disgusted by private practice in the context of law if only because it at best allows the rich to get away with things the poor would not at best, and at worst skews court cases in favour of the rich in disputes over who was at fault. Civilly or criminally. I wish there were some way to nationalize the court system altogether and give the rich the same lawyers as the poor, for far more reasons than just this one issue.

But that's distinct from whether someone who was actually being mistreated by their partner should be treated somewhat differently by the law, if only slightly, than someone who just got bored of their spouse. It just feels slightly unfair to the former, and I'm not sure why.

If the fine is so small that it'll hurt nobody, no-one will care about it. If the fine is big enough to affect people's decisions, that's going to trap low-income folks in failing and unhappy marriages.

What if the fines are proportional to someone's net worth? (Which IMO all fines should be anyway.)

Secondly, you just brought up teen pregnancy even though it's only tangentially related to the topic at hand, pretended your enemies supported it, and then took it as an example of their hypocrisy.

I "pretended" nothing. The voting public has allowed the child support system to impoverish teenage parents instead of just collectivizing the costs of having children among all who took the exact same risks those teenage parents took. And yet, the exact same voting public has also allowed partners who just got bored of their spouse through no fault of the spouse's own to be treated not even the slightest bit differently than those who were actually mistreated by them.

Enemies might be... a little too strong a word.

You did the same thing with "Oh but Americans haven't boycotted China."

Whatever happened to "actions speak louder than words"?

. . .

I didn't twist anyone's words. Your lack of reading comprehension is your problem, not mine.

See reply to Arval.

Moving the goalposts and going on a strawman threadjack? What a shock.

See above.

. . .

Steven Crowder is just catering to consumer demand amongst his audience.

Pretty stupid thing to say about the guy who was caught on camera being abusive to his heavily pregnant wife, trying to make her get an Uber to go grocery shopping.

I was referring to his incentive to say the things he says, not his incentive to do the things he does. Hence my referring to this in the context of "talking a big game about how important marriage is".

The failure of his side to find better ambassadors for their message doesn't reflect well on it, but the word-twisting tendencies of the opposite side doesn't reflect well on theirs either.

[The Holy Therns]

I support every reason for divorce. Including shits and giggles.

[Kernen]

Frankly, I'm disgusted by private practice in the context of law if only because it at best allows the rich to get away with things the poor would not at best, and at worst skews court cases in favour of the rich in disputes over who was at fault.

This is why I'm in the private sector of law.

Civilly or criminally. I wish there were some way to nationalize the court system altogether and give the rich the same lawyers as the poor, for far more reasons than just this one issue.

Nobody would go into the practice of law were this the case. I'd find a new job entirely.

If the fine is so small that it'll hurt nobody, no-one will care about it. If the fine is big enough to affect people's decisions, that's going to trap low-income folks in failing and unhappy marriages.

What if the fines are proportional to someone's net worth? (Which IMO all fines should be anyway.)

Courts can already take judicial notice of a party's assets for any penalties not prescribed by law.

[Saiwana]

I support every reason for divorce. Including shits and giggles.

How would you feel about the state using such sentiments as justification for raising marriage requirements/entry fees to try to ensure that people are "serious enough" about the arrangement before finalizing it, so that the costs can or probably will be recouped in the event that a divorce happens later?

[Arval Va]

Firstly, your proposed solution will not do anything. Many people who are divorced were extremely happy and simply couldn't predict their love dying down.

If you figure that's the case, why didn't you say so the first time? Why did you even feel the need to twist my words into "never be allowed to divorce"?

Because it's not the only problem with your proposal. Either way, that's not what I said; I said that it would disadvantage already disadvantaged people in the family court system.

And, even if to a lesser extent, a similar point still applies. Wouldn't raising the stakes; if only slightly; for predicting the feelings of one's future self create more incentive to find better ways to predict it? Perhaps the incentives shouldn't be solely on the couple, but what's the alternative? The social sciences, which are of faulty enough judgment to expect sincerity from poll respondents?

The problem is that many marriages fail because of completely unpredictable factors like financial issues, grief or addiction due to misfortune, or any number of things that you can't reasonably expect every single married couple to premeditate. Either way, I just don't buy that the chance of getting a small fine if they divorce under certain circumstances will cause these fiancées to be super extra careful about marriage. Most people aren't going to be considering things like that.

And this, of course, is assuming that these fines won't be manipulated to the benefit of abusive or possessive partners, because that's definitely a possibility for people who aren't able to collect that money on their own.

Frankly, I'm disgusted by private practice in the context of law if only because it at best allows the rich to get away with things the poor would not at best, and at worst skews court cases in favour of the rich in disputes over who was at fault. Civilly or criminally. I wish there were some way to nationalize the court system altogether and give the rich the same lawyers as the poor, for far more reasons than just this one issue.

Public defenders are already super overworked and underpaid, so that's not practical in the moment. I definitely understand the sentiment, though.

But that's distinct from whether someone who was actually being mistreated by their partner should be treated somewhat differently by the law, if only slightly, than someone who just got bored of their spouse. It just feels slightly unfair to the former, and I'm not sure why.

A marriage where spouses feel unappreciated, unsatisfied, or unhappy with their partner, even if it's not abusive, is still not going to work itself out by threatening a spouse with fines if they leave. This, of course, still depends on abusers being caught and abuse being evaluated properly by the courts, which is by no means guaranteed.

If the fine is so small that it'll hurt nobody, no-one will care about it. If the fine is big enough to affect people's decisions, that's going to trap low-income folks in failing and unhappy marriages.

What if the fines are proportional to someone's net worth? (Which IMO all fines should be anyway.)

Even proportional fines will have an outsized impact on low-income people, because more of their money has to go to rent, food, or utilities, and most have to pay more for food, toilet paper, etc. because they can't buy in bulk. Either way, while proportional fines may sound great, they would mean that Jeff Bezos would be paying $78,464,163.64 parking tickets where the average American would pay $40. He deserves it, but it's still pretty ridiculous.

Secondly, you just brought up teen pregnancy even though it's only tangentially related to the topic at hand, pretended your enemies supported it, and then took it as an example of their hypocrisy.

I "pretended" nothing. The voting public has allowed the child support system to impoverish teenage parents instead of just collectivizing the costs of having children among all who took the exact same risks those teenage parents took. And yet, the exact same voting public has also allowed partners who just got bored of their spouse through no fault of the spouse's own to be treated not even the slightest bit differently than those who were actually mistreated by them.

You did the same thing with "Oh but Americans haven't boycotted China."

Whatever happened to "actions speak louder than words"?

You're not debating 332 million people, so I fail to see the relevance of the voting public or Americans in general.

[Maqshura]

In my country, there's no necessity to prove whose fault for divorce. That was abolished in 2015

[Equai]

I support every reason for divorce. Including shits and giggles.

How would you feel about the state using such sentiments as justification for raising marriage requirements/entry fees to try to ensure that people are "serious enough" about the arrangement before finalizing it, so that the costs can or probably will be recouped in the event that a divorce happens later?

Divorce should be easier, simpler and more accessible for any reason or no reasons at all. No one should be pressured to stay in a marriage they don't want or feel unsafe in. If someone wants to divorce just for the fun of it they they should divorce just for the fun of it.

[Ifreann]

Pretty stupid thing to say about the guy who was caught on camera being abusive to his heavily pregnant wife, trying to make her get an Uber to go grocery shopping.

I was referring to his incentive to say the things he says, not his incentive to do the things he does. Hence my referring to this in the context of "talking a big game about how important marriage is".

And my point, all the way back at the start, was that Crowder is showing by what he does the kind of marriage he has in mind when he talks about how important it is and how terrible divorce is.

[Saiwana]

Divorce should be easier, simpler and more accessible for any reason or no reasons at all. No one should be pressured to stay in a marriage they don't want or feel unsafe in. If someone wants to divorce just for the fun of it they they should divorce just for the fun of it.

The post is asking if marriage in general should be harder to get than a divorce or equivalently difficult? Either way, there are typically fees and costs to get the change in status to become officially recognized. And there is a winner and loser if the resources don't wind up equally split for whatever reason, like one having more income and assets than the other.

[Major-Tom]

Divorce should be easier, simpler and more accessible for any reason or no reasons at all. No one should be pressured to stay in a marriage they don't want or feel unsafe in. If someone wants to divorce just for the fun of it they they should divorce just for the fun of it.

The post is asking if marriage in general should be harder to get than a divorce or equivalently difficult? Either way, there are typically fees and costs to get the change in status to become officially recognized. And there is a winner and loser if the resources don't wind up equally split for whatever reason, like one having more income and assets than the other.

That's why you call your local attorney and ask him to draft a prenuptial before you walk down the aisle. If you don't, the lack of foresight is kind of on you.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Because it's not the only problem with your proposal. Either way, that's not what I said; I said that it would disadvantage already disadvantaged people in the family court system.

When precisely did you say this? Your argument seemed to be about people who fall into and out of love (hence my mention of needing better incentives for predicting the future feelings of oneself) and about actual abuse victims (hence my point about how a judge who can't even tell if an abuse victim is even 51% likely to have been abused needs to be replaced; one which you responded to by going back to the point of people falling into and out of love).

The problem is that many marriages fail because of completely unpredictable factors like financial issues, grief or addiction due to misfortune, or any number of things that you can't reasonably expect every single married couple to premeditate. Either way, I just don't buy that the chance of getting a small fine if they divorce under certain circumstances will cause these fiancées to be super extra careful about marriage. Most people aren't going to be considering things like that.

I appreciate the point, but I'm kind of left wondering why you didn't just put it that way the first time, in lieu of characterizing it as "never be allowed to divorce".

Public defenders are already super overworked and underpaid, so that's not practical in the moment. I definitely understand the sentiment, though.

Banning private practice and giving the rich no where to escape to will give the rich; who at least on a per capita level have more clout on average; a stake in a better legal system. Sort of like how Canada and its restrictions against private healthcare forced the rich to help make our healthcare system better, by giving something closer to what the rest of us have, at least compared to the US. While it still has its flaws, at least we're not to the point where accident victims are on camera begging bystanders not to call an ambulance.

A marriage where spouses feel unappreciated, unsatisfied, or unhappy with their partner, even if it's not abusive, is still not going to work itself out by threatening a spouse with fines if they leave. This, of course, still depends on abusers being caught and abuse being evaluated properly by the courts, which is by no means guaranteed.

Again, an interesting point, but again, it leaves me wondering why you went back to the "into and out of love" point last time I brought up the "exceptions for abuse" point.

Even proportional fines will have an outsized impact on low-income people, because more of their money has to go to rent, food, or utilities, and most have to pay more for food, toilet paper, etc. because they can't buy in bulk. Either way, while proportional fines may sound great, they would mean that Jeff Bezos would be paying $78,464,163.64 parking tickets where the average American would pay $40. He deserves it, but it's still pretty ridiculous.

Or it would force society to opt for community service, probation, or house arrest in lieu of fines.

You're not debating 332 million people, so I fail to see the relevance of the voting public or Americans in general.

I'm debating a random if slightly skewed sample of the English-speaking world, much of which didn't boycott China over the one-child policy either.

I was referring to his incentive to say the things he says, not his incentive to do the things he does. Hence my referring to this in the context of "talking a big game about how important marriage is".

And my point, all the way back at the start, was that Crowder is showing by what he does the kind of marriage he has in mind when he talks about how important it is and how terrible divorce is.

Which is hardly relevant to the overall issue of divorce. Plenty of people who aren't Crowder fans would appreciate if the courts would treat people like Crowder's mistreated wife at least a little better than someone who just got bored of their spouse and left just because they could.

So what's the relevance of Crowder as an individual supposed to be, to the issue as a whole?

[Equai]

Divorce should be easier, simpler and more accessible for any reason or no reasons at all. No one should be pressured to stay in a marriage they don't want or feel unsafe in. If someone wants to divorce just for the fun of it they they should divorce just for the fun of it.

The post is asking if marriage in general should be harder to get than a divorce or equivalently difficult? Either way, there are typically fees and costs to get the change in status to become officially recognized. And there is a winner and loser if the resources don't wind up equally split for whatever reason, like one having more income and assets than the other.

Both marriage and divorce should be as easy as possible to get. Gatekeeping anything of those is stupid and only shows the intentions of people wanting to gatekeep it.

[Juansonia]

The post is asking if marriage in general should be harder to get than a divorce or equivalently difficult? Either way, there are typically fees and costs to get the change in status to become officially recognized. And there is a winner and loser if the resources don't wind up equally split for whatever reason, like one having more income and assets than the other.

Both marriage and divorce should be as easy as possible to get. Gatekeeping anything of those is stupid and only shows the intentions of people wanting to gatekeep it.

Wouldn't removing official recognition inherently make marriage/divorce easier to get by removing the requirement for anything more than "if you say so"?

[Arval Va]

Because it's not the only problem with your proposal. Either way, that's not what I said; I said that it would disadvantage already disadvantaged people in the family court system.

When precisely did you say this? Your argument seemed to be about people who fall into and out of love (hence my mention of needing better incentives for predicting the future feelings of oneself) and about actual abuse victims (hence my point about how a judge who can't even tell if an abuse victim is even 51% likely to have been abused needs to be replaced; one which you responded to by going back to the point of people falling into and out of love).

Basically, fines would heavily discourage low-income families from divorcing, and make it basically impossible for many people.

If someone vows to be with someone forever, and goes back on their word for no reason, shouldn't there be at least some consequences for going back on their word? Financial penalties are a nice middle ground between "over-reacting" and "no consequences at all."

And what about people who can't afford the fine? Should they just never be allowed to divorce?

And, once again, the idea of being able to premeditate their falling out of love is just not how these things work. It's not practical.

The problem is that many marriages fail because of completely unpredictable factors like financial issues, grief or addiction due to misfortune, or any number of things that you can't reasonably expect every single married couple to premeditate. Either way, I just don't buy that the chance of getting a small fine if they divorce under certain circumstances will cause these fiancées to be super extra careful about marriage. Most people aren't going to be considering things like that.

I appreciate the point, but I'm kind of left wondering why you didn't just put it that way the first time, in lieu of characterizing it as "never be allowed to divorce".

See above point(s). Either way, do you actually have a response?

A marriage where spouses feel unappreciated, unsatisfied, or unhappy with their partner, even if it's not abusive, is still not going to work itself out by threatening a spouse with fines if they leave. This, of course, still depends on abusers being caught and abuse being evaluated properly by the courts, which is by no means guaranteed.

Again, an interesting point, but again, it leaves me wondering why you went back to the "into and out of love" point last time I brought up the "exceptions for abuse" point.

Well, as I pointed out, this depends on abuse being known about and prosecuted correctly, which is unfortunately not the case and not going to be the case. Abusers are constantly escaping the system.

Even proportional fines will have an outsized impact on low-income people, because more of their money has to go to rent, food, or utilities, and most have to pay more for food, toilet paper, etc. because they can't buy in bulk. Either way, while proportional fines may sound great, they would mean that Jeff Bezos would be paying $78,464,163.64 parking tickets where the average American would pay $40. He deserves it, but it's still pretty ridiculous.

Or it would force society to opt for community service, probation, or house arrest in lieu of fines.

Community service or house arrest for getting divorced would force people to stop working and could completely cut off a low-income family's income.

You're not debating 332 million people, so I fail to see the relevance of the voting public or Americans in general.

I'm debating a random if slightly skewed sample of the English-speaking world, much of which didn't boycott China over the one-child policy either.

The problem here is that you didn't bother to ask their opinion, and instead decided to give them an opinion which you could then attack. It's basically the definition of a strawman.

[Ifreann]

And my point, all the way back at the start, was that Crowder is showing by what he does the kind of marriage he has in mind when he talks about how important it is and how terrible divorce is.

Which is hardly relevant to the overall issue of divorce. Plenty of people who aren't Crowder fans would appreciate if the courts would treat people like Crowder's mistreated wife at least a little better than someone who just got bored of their spouse and left just because they could.

So what's the relevance of Crowder as an individual supposed to be, to the issue as a whole?

Read the second sentence of the OP.

[Heavenly Assault]

It's really not and it's really not anyone's business except for the parties involved. Stop trying to play God, smdh.

Should grocery stores let one side continue to pay for purchases with a joint account debit card? What should the bank do with that joint account anyways? Can public school accept the signature of one side as qualifying as 'parental approval' for a field trip? Alternatively, what happens if neither side wants to raise the kids? If the side with their name on the land deed tries to evict their partner after a falling-out, should the police assist in that?

You seem to be under the impression that it is possible for society to be uninvolved in the disputes of divorce. It very much is not. When you're a grocery store clerk and you put your customer's debit card into the card reader, the bank will either process the payment or it will not process the payment; there is no neutral "I am not involved" option there.

It is possible. It's called "not my problem". They opened a joint account; they sent their kid to public school and if neither side wants the child, that's what orphanages are for. Let them clean up their own messes or deal with the consequences. In all of your examples, we can keep adding "what ifs" until we reach infinite complexity and yet the simplest and least fascistic solution is to let the involved parties tend to their own affairs, for better or worse. When you infantilize society, it does in fact become more infantile and that's not even addressing the neurotic pettiness of overbearing micromanagement (playing God).

[GuessTheAltAccount]

See above point(s). Either way, do you actually have a response?

That is my response.

See, I don't judge an idea based on the best argument for the idea, I judge it based on the most popular one among its advocates, and even if I find one that seems better (which, credit where due, yours seem to be) that something must be wrong with it for people to revert to alternatives to it. So when the advocates of no fault divorce seem to generally gravitate toward "oh people have just as much right to leave with zero penalty even if they just got bored of their spouse as if they were actually mistreated by them", then even if one of them says "it also helps poor people who can't afford a good lawyer escape abusive relationships", I assume something must be wrong with that idea in order for no-fault-divorce advocates to revert to its alternatives, even if I don't know why.

Well, as I pointed out, this depends on abuse being known about and prosecuted correctly, which is unfortunately not the case and not going to be the case. Abusers are constantly escaping the system.

Abusers are constantly escaping by the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, an understandably high standard when we know a wrongful conviction will end in the convict being abused themselves.

We need ranked levels of accusation-credibility, if only to distinguish "baseless" from "plausible but not at beyond a reasonable doubt level." In their absence, people have treated how high a standard "beyond a reasonable doubt" is as though it were an excuse to legitimize the court of public opinion in the context of sexual abuse allegations. It's only a matter of time before that spreads to other abuse allegations.

Community service or house arrest for getting divorced would force people to stop working and could completely cut off a low-income family's income.

If that's the case, how come I never see that brought up when community service is touted as a more rehabilitative alternative to prison?

The problem here is that you didn't bother to ask their opinion, and instead decided to give them an opinion which you could then attack.

Hardly that. The public's continued trade with China demonstrates they don't object as strongly to how it is run as they claim to.

. . .

Which is hardly relevant to the overall issue of divorce. Plenty of people who aren't Crowder fans would appreciate if the courts would treat people like Crowder's mistreated wife at least a little better than someone who just got bored of their spouse and left just because they could.

So what's the relevance of Crowder as an individual supposed to be, to the issue as a whole?

Read the second sentence of the OP.

Still doesn't make it particularly relevant. Crowder being the one who happened to draw mainstream attention to it recently doesn't reflect poorly on criticism of no fault divorce, it reflects audience attitudes toward no-fault divorce (either already present or inevitable from having one's attention drawn to the issue) that make it advantageous for him to bring up.

[Ifreann]

Read the second sentence of the OP.

Still doesn't make it particularly relevant.

It's relevant to this thread. That you want to take these comments and sprint off into a totally different conversation is what is irrelevant.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Still doesn't make it particularly relevant.

It's relevant to this thread. That you want to take these comments and sprint off into a totally different conversation is what is irrelevant.

What makes it relevant? The subject of the thread is "Divorce- no fault vs. whose fault?". If the fact that Crowder happened to be the one to draw people's attention to the matter reflects poorly on criticisms of no fault divorce, how? If not, how is it relevant?

[Ifreann]

It's relevant to this thread. That you want to take these comments and sprint off into a totally different conversation is what is irrelevant.

What makes it relevant? The subject of the thread is "Divorce- no fault vs. whose fault?". If the fact that Crowder happened to be the one to draw people's attention to the matter reflects poorly on criticisms of no fault divorce, how? If not, how is it relevant?

I will again invite you to read the OP. In fact, you should probably always read the OP instead of just the title of the thread.

[Incelastan]

Not gonna lie. I’m instantly suspicious of anyone who is too morally sanctimonious. As in, why do you care so much what other people do in bed? The only motives that come to mind are far more sinister than anything that they might denounce.